re-position child abuse combined thread outside christianity corner

Irlandese

We have a problem with hyper-sensitivity and clowning around by Fanny Craddock and PDN with a thread that should never have been condemned to live in christianity corner.
This message is probably typical , received but wiped, along with a reasonable post from me, where I alsoi explained that I was forced to use "brother" or "sister" , in a secular setting, as opposed to calling other respondents "friend" despite the similarity to religious titles and the fact that "friend" is conveniently common to all genders, because Fanny Craddock got upset about it, or, if I were the suspicious type, I might suggest it was because the debate was going the wrong way.
Anyway, this question of clericalabuse and the role of the pope and related issues is far too important to leave to the one-sided modding of those who do their thing in that corner.
Please get this thread out of Christianity corner !

The message that was wiped from gentz;
Dear Irlandese,

getz has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled - The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged) - in the Christianity forum of boards.ie.

This thread is located at:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055855692&goto=newpost

Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
irelandese,i couldent agree more,if they ban you for it,they will also have to ban me,because i think the same
***************

Cabaal

Why not start a thread outside of the forum?

Irlandese

Cabaal wrote: »

Why not start a thread outside of the forum?

We had more than one that the Christianity mods managed to have grouped together and given to them to control. That is the problem. If we could start a new one outside there, without fear of it being pushed back in under their christian-focussed control, that would be right on

rovert

I dont get this request there is a thread in Atheism & Agnosticism for it too.

Dades

rovert wrote: »

I dont get this request there is a thread in Atheism & Agnosticism for it too.

There is and we don't want another.

The thread in A&A was stickied as we were sick of new threads popping up each day. If someone has a new article, revelation or a salient point, they can post it in our sticky. If they just want a rant - take it elsewhere.

Irlandese

rovert wrote: »

I dont get this request there is a thread in Atheism & Agnosticism for it too.

Sorry, you are right. I just found it and have started writing there and sending messages to the others with deleted posts and who feel same way, to advise of location etc. But thanks anyway.

Irlandese

Dades wrote: »

There is and we don't want another.

The thread in A&A was stickied as we were sick of new threads popping up each day. If someone has a new article, revelation or a salient point, they can post it in our sticky. If they just want a rant - take it elsewhere.

This is from Fanny to me:


Dear Irlandese,

Fanny Cradock has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled - The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged) - in the Christianity forum of boards.ie.

This thread is located at:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055855692&goto=newpost

Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************

---Quote (Originally by Irlandese)---
Come off it, Fanny, we may have been driven to post in christianity
but it does not make us idiots.
we all know where you are coming from on this and why you
are closing down the discussion and deleting selected posts.
---End Quote---
I'm not Catholic and I feel absolutely no desire to protect anyone (or whatever it is you are insinuating) by stifling conversation. PDN felt the need to delete a number of posts and to offer a common sense guide to help maintain just a little bit of decorum around here. I deleted your regrettably bitchy post (read the charter, it contravened the charter) and now you've gone an thrown the tows out of the pram. Frankly, you attitude stinks. If you want to start a thread in the A&A forum be my guest.

Dades

I suspect you shouldn't be posting PMs.

Irlandese

Dades wrote: »

I suspect you shouldn't be posting PMs.

Sorry,
you are right,won't do it again, unless it is important to do so.
I couldn't see it on the thread when I opened it,
so it must have been deleted by author soon after writing.
I thought it showed something that merited exposure,
but, on hindsight, I should be a lot more tolerant and humble !
Yikes !

Dades

Irlandese wrote: »

I should be a lot more tolerant and humble !

There, but for the grace of Odin, go we.

Fanny Cradock

I find this whole situation very odd.

There are a couple of issues at play here.

Firstly, my request to Irlandese to refrain from calling people his "friend" or his "dark friend". It was causing a number of incidences of anoyance amongst other members.

Secondly, my fellow mod decided to delete a number of posts from different members for "back seat modding" (three, I believe) and then provided some guidelines for everybody to adhere to. Irlandese's then replied with a inappropriate post directed at PDN which I deleted. Being perfectly honest, I'm a little taken aback about the magnitude of the reaction and why I'm now the focus of this member's ire for what I see as being a relatively minor incident.

The thread in question contains approximately 800 posts that span 54 pages. While such an emotive discussion is bound to cause some serious moments of disagreement, the thread was sailing along fairly smoothly until Irlandese blew up around about post 802. Despite what might be otherwise claimed, neither PDN or myself are attempting to stifle conversation or certain opinions. We are not Catholics and feel no obligations to protect the RCC. I'm happy to categorically state (as I have on numerous occasions) that all guilty parties in the sexual abuse scandals should be punished to the full extent of the law. This is irrespective of what position they occupy in the Church. Attempts to claim that I (or PDN) have vested interests are scurrilous red herrings.

All in all, no one has been banned, no infractions have been issued and the thread remains open for business. Perspective is important.

Irlandese

Dades wrote: »

There, but for the grace of Odin, go we.

Yup, but,
but I have just realised, it wasn't a private message at all.
It was a probably too-revealing quick riposte from FC, which she wiped off the posting board but could not wipe off my notification e-mail, before I could see it.
I certainly don't want to continue this tit-for-tat nonsense here or to dignify the later attempted and incorrect explanation ( there was no blow up at 802 or elsewhere- the deleted posts were fine, except they went against the well recognised strictly enforced and sadly erroneous dogma of that section ) from the poster in question that also followed me here, with a misleading reply. The others involved know what happened. I could ccopy some of the quotes from my in-box, but know I do not need to bother.
Enough already ! I expect most posters know where F C is coming from.
The people in A&A are doing a good job.
They don't deserve to have petulant spats from other threads .
But, it is best fro clean and civilised debate that topics like clerical sex abuse are kept out of tainted fora like the one we were moved to on combining a few threads.
At least we are out of it, for now.

Fanny Cradock

Irlandese wrote: »

Yup, but,
but I have just realised, it wasn't a private message at all.
It was a probably too-revealing quick riposte from FC, which she wiped off the posting board but could not wipe off my notification e-mail, before I could see it.
I certainly don't want to continue this tit-for-tat nonsense here or to dignify the later attempted and incorrect explanation from the poster in question that also followed me here, with a reply. The others involved know what happened. enough already !
You are doing a good job here.
You don't dererve to have petulent spats from other threads ending up here

I'm not sure why you are placing a particular importance on a post that only had an existence of 1 minute. I admit that it was not particularly helpful in defusing this situation we find ourselves in (hence why I removed it), but then we have to look at why a non-event has grown to a problem that now spans 3 forums.

Long story short, I removed the post within the allotted 2 minutes and replaced it with a question because I wanted to see if you would actually type what you had only insinuated up to this point. I notice that you didn't answer my question and you instead went over to another forum to have a rant. You have again attempted on this thread to imply that I operated under certain unmentioned motivations.

The fact is I deleted one of your posts. Why? Because it was not appropriate and broke the charter, specifically rule 11. But, of course, it is easier to suggest that I've got some alterer motive behind it all. What are you implying? Something about me preventing certain lines of criticism in relation to the RCC because I'm Catholic or some such. I'll remind you that I'm not Catholic and feel no compunction to defend the organisation, especially if they are implicated in cover-ups.

I feel it is important to point out again that there has been no bannings, no infractions and the thread remains open for business. You claimed that you have been forced to post on the Christianity forum, but the truth is you haven't. There exists at least one thread (on the A&A forum and possibly more on other forums) where you are free to express your views on this issue within the context of the forum's charter.

I'm sorry that you don't feel welcome to post in the Christianity forum, but I believe that you are willing enemies and conflict into existence. I'm sure that we can put this behind us and move on.

Cabaal

Dades wrote: »

I suspect you shouldn't be posting PMs.

They don't look like private PM's though they are thread notifications as he's subscribed to it

Fanny Cradock

Cabaal wrote: »

They don't look like private PM's though they are thread notifications as he's subscribed to it

Can't speak for the first message, but mine was a deleted post.

Nevyn

You don't have to post in christianity on this issue, you can post in the humanities forum.

Irlandese

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm not sure why you are placing a particular importance on a post that only had an existence of 1 minute. I admit that it was not particularly helpful in defusing this situation we find ourselves in (hence why I removed it), but then we have to look at why a non-event has grown to a problem that now spans 3 forums.

Long story short, I removed the post within the allotted 2 minutes and replaced it with a question because I wanted to see if you would actually type what you had only insinuated up to this point. I notice that you didn't answer my question and you instead went over to another forum to have a rant. You have again attempted on this thread to imply that I operated under certain unmentioned motivations.

The fact is I deleted one of your posts. Why? Because it was not appropriate and broke the charter, specifically rule 11. But, of course, it is easier to suggest that I've got some alterer motive behind it all. What are you implying? Something about me preventing certain lines of criticism in relation to the RCC because I'm Catholic or some such. I'll remind you that I'm not Catholic and feel no compunction to defend the organisation, especially if they are implicated in cover-ups.

I feel it is important to point out again that there has been no bannings, no infractions and the thread remains open for business. You claimed that you have been forced to post on the Christianity forum, but the truth is you haven't. There exists at least one thread (on the A&A forum and possibly more on other forums) where you are free to express your views on this issue within the context of the forum's charter.

I'm sorry that you don't feel welcome to post in the Christianity forum, but I believe that you are willing enemies and conflict into existence. I'm sure that we can put this behind us and move on.

2 minutes or two years, to me it is the same, if the content is as it was. I will reply, albeit briefly and I have to say, reluctantly, as your tone seems to have changed, at least for this particular post, although it continues to mislead. I realize, of course, that the change in tone is probably just for public consumption, while outside of your safer little nook or cranny in Christianity. I am not the one who goes in for rants, friend. If I want to see a rant, I can always read your post box, eh? I also have no intention to return to post on this topic in your sadly biased christianity section, because it serves no useful purpose to attempt open discussion under the immoderate and un-even control of biased others.
I particularly dislike downright un-truths, such as your false allegation that I "blew up" at post 802 or whenever, to attempt to explain your role-inappropriate behavior, ( rule 11 in your charter!) as in deletions and banning use of terms such as "friend" when I have been most punctilious about my own behavior in posts, unlike you, in your own deleted one.
The person who I called a "dark friend" had just before twice said in un-censored posts that those posters who were concerned about the children involved “would be among the first to defend abortions". He or she was not brought to book in any way about this appalling slander and pointedly, was the only one to post a thank you to you, Fanny Craddock, for forbidding me to use "friend" again in a post. A "fellow traveller" perhaps? We could not really be faulted for believing so, on that evidence.
Sorry, friend, I have certainly not been in the least concerned whether you are or are not a catholic or even a christian. Your views on religion are irrelevant to me. What you do as a controller of open debate on a site is, however. We certainly were forced into your forum, when the thread on which I was posting was amalgamated into yours. As a rule, I try to avoid having anything to do with your christianity forum for the reasons i have alluded to here, that is ,the absence of an even-handed approach and what I and a number of other posters have communicated to me privately as their and my considered opinion of the very biased and immoderate "moderation" .
I try to take a measured approach to these intra-site issues. Here, I reserve my anger for the abuse of little children by people who are protected and facilitated by people in very powerful positions. They have too many apologists and protectors all over the place, including, unfortunately and perhaps understandably, in blogs of this nature. Careful, Fanny, I do not accuse you of this, at least thus far.
However, I do say that your moderating is frequently apparently biased and indicative, (as with the tone of the deleted post to me and your actions to censure me in the past,) of a prejorative approach to those of us who merely seek , albeit with incisive and often caustic wit, to find the real truth behind the clever PR of the church in this and related cases.
Peace? If you try to desist from your earlier behavior and try to conform to the standards we see in the excellently run A&A section, ( I like that Dades chap's style, Odin indeed !! ) I am sure we would have no or few problems, when our posts cross, hopefully outside of Christianity.
Frankly, friend, I am too old and unfortunately too experienced in hard places, to waste my remaining energy on un-productive, incestuous intra-blog arguaments, especially when I am supposed to be working on something a little more important at the moment. So, if you will kindly excuse me...................

Irlandese

Thaedydal wrote: »

You don't have to post in christianity on this issue, you can post in the humanities forum.

Why thank you, kind friend. We can say "friend" in humanities, I suppose?
It is certainly kinder than some of the things people have been saying
and getting away with, in christianity lately, as alluded to in my last post here.

Irlandese

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Can't speak for the first message, but mine was a deleted post.

deleted? Ah, but sure it's the thoughts that count, eh?

goat2

Irlandese wrote: »

deleted? Ah, but sure it's the thoughts that count, eh?

i wonder why people get annoyed with being called friend, there are worse things a person can call another,
what really is this upheavel about

Nevyn

Irlandese wrote: »

Why thank you, kind friend. We can say "friend" in humanities, I suppose?
It is certainly kinder than some of the things people have been saying
and getting away with, in christianity lately, as alluded to in my last post here.

Any terms of endearment can be cause for consternation when communicating with strangers on the internet, they tend to be more bother then they are worth and far too much can be read into them to it's best to refrain.

PDN

goat2 wrote: »

i wonder why people get annoyed with being called friend, there are worse things a person can call another,
what really is this upheavel about

The upheaval is about Irlandese and another poster getting increasingly personal to the point where it was threatening the possibility of any sensible discussion in the thread. I currently have PMs in my Inbox from the other party (a rather diehard and dogmatic Catholic) complaining about how nasty I've been to him as well.

Our opinion on the Christianity Forum is that the issue of Clerical child abuse is serious enough to warrant a thread where serious discussion can take place. We are aware that it is an emotive subject and a lot of people are angry - and tbh we've let a few posts slide by that would normally be judged as breaching our Charter's guidelines on inappropriate language. But turning that thread into a grudge match, or needling, between two posters is not helpful to anyone.

It was already pointed out to Irlandese earlier today that, if he found the Charter and moderation of the Christianity forum to be too restrictive, then he could post in A&A or even After Hours.

Btw, Irlandese has now been banned for a week for continual backseat modding despite a number of public warnings posted in that thread by myself and my fellow mod.

Fanny Cradock

Irlandese wrote: »

deleted? Ah, but sure it's the thoughts that count, eh?

And I stand by my comment, if not the harsh manner in how I expressed my feelings. But I can see that there is little to be gained from debating this further.

PDN

goat2 wrote: »

i am also catholic, but i am now a very angry person, knowing what i know now, i do not attend mass anymore, i still beleive, but without these shephards of god as i once called them, this is not what the man above would want to represent him, and it goes right to the top,
and i know people are saying it was a fraction of the clergy who did this, but i now beleive the whole lot knew that they did it, and helped brush it under the carpet, which make all of them responsible for these deadlly deeds, the pope, cardinals, bishops, priests they all knew, so they should be starting at the top stepping down

I quite agree with you. But that has nothing to do with the moderation of the Christianity Forum.

Personally I happen to despise the Catholic Church, but my task as moderator is to implement the forum Charter and facilitate good and fair discussion. That does not happen when people reduce a very important topic to schoolboy squabbling and continual whinging about moderation.

philiporeilly

PDN wrote: »

I quite agree with you. But that has nothing to do with the moderation of the Christianity Forum.

Personally I happen to despise the Catholic Church, but my task as moderator is to implement the forum Charter and facilitate good and fair discussion. That does not happen when people reduce a very important topic to schoolboy squabbling and continual whinging about moderation.

Without taking sides with the arguments between certain posters I have to say I noticed a few posts of mine that happened to be deleted. I only noticed it afterwards and do not believe I broke the charter. I never received a warning or explanation either.

PDN

philiporeilly wrote: »

Without taking sides with the arguments between certain posters I have to say I noticed a few posts of mine that happened to be deleted. I only noticed it afterwards and do not believe I broke the charter. I never received a warning or explanation either.

I've scrolled back through about 20 pages and 2 weeks of that thread (God, what mind-numbing crap some people have posted ) and I can only see one post of yours that was deleted.

I think it was meant to be humorous, something to do with the Pope's email address and a spam filter? It didn't make much sense, didn't seem to be funny and tbh I don't really find a thread about children being raped to be a great setting for cracking jokes.

If you wish to complain about posts being deleted then I suggest you follow the usual procedure and PM a mod, citing the date when you think a post was unfairly deleted.

Irlandese

PDN wrote: »

The upheaval is about Irlandese and another poster getting increasingly personal to the point where it was threatening the possibility of any sensible discussion in the thread. I currently have PMs in my Inbox from the other party (a rather diehard and dogmatic Catholic) complaining about how nasty I've been to him as well.

Our opinion on the Christianity Forum is that the issue of Clerical child abuse is serious enough to warrant a thread where serious discussion can take place. We are aware that it is an emotive subject and a lot of people are angry - and tbh we've let a few posts slide by that would normally be judged as breaching our Charter's guidelines on inappropriate language. But turning that thread into a grudge match, or needling, between two posters is not helpful to anyone.

It was already pointed out to Irlandese earlier today that, if he found the Charter and moderation of the Christianity forum to be too restrictive, then he could post in A&A or even After Hours.

Btw, Irlandese has now been banned for a week for continual backseat modding despite a number of public warnings posted in that thread by myself and my fellow mod.

Agh, yawn, More of the same dishonest mis-representation, as with Fanny Craddock?
Not a surprise really. You have no pM's from me in your inbox and nor does Fanny Craddock. Then, it's a pity others cannot screen back over the deletions, to see just what you guys have been covering up re past performance etc.
My banning ? For the record, I didn't want the thread moved to christianity in the first place. There is no way I would now return to debate such a serious topic in that christianity circus, under the dishonest approach employed by these two. A week's ban? Oh, please, make it a month ! Six? What's the difference?
I have no interest in back-seat modding, as you allege.
I admire the patience and even-handedness of mods like Dades and others
and, logically, naturally find yours and Craddocks to be objectionable and to
be avoided at all costs. It cannot be an easy job, but to do it right, requires
a modicum of honesty and some basic standards. The charter should be a responsibility, not a mis-used baton. Your recent performance has been less than pathetic, sorry. Get a life, people??
I really have no desire to waste further effort with either of you two zealots, so get on to another hobby-horse or start telling it as it is.

Irlandese

Thaedydal wrote: »

Any terms of endearment can be cause for consternation when communicating with strangers on the internet, they tend to be more bother then they are worth and far too much can be read into them to it's best to refrain.

Sorry,
I was just doing a bit of mis-placed and probably pointless angle-grinding !
Onwards and upwards !

PDN

Irlandese wrote: »

I have no interest in back-seat modding, as you allege.

You kept on complaining, in the thread, about the moderating. You want everyone to see the posts? OK.

Irlandese posted at 14:48 wrote:

No PDN, you chose to delete a few posts
The problem is that this combined thread should clearly have gone elsewhere, where the
arguaments could be handled better, without ridiculous hyper-sensitivity and clowning around.

Irlandese posted at 15:57 wrote:

Our problem is having this thread put in here in the first place.
There seems to be a bias issue here.
I vote we open a new thread somewhere else, probably in agnostics or aetheists or similar

Irlandese posted at 15:57 in response to a moderator warning to all parties in the thread wrote:

we dont want to debate clerical child abuse in the christianity forum, thanks anyway !!

Irlanses posted at 16:03 wrote:

Come off it, Fanny, we may have been driven to post in christianity
but it does not make us idiots.
we all know where you are coming from on this and why you
are closing down the discussion and deleting selected posts.

Irlandese posted at 16:04 wrote:

People, friends, lets move this to agnostics, now.

There is no point continuing to try to have an open discussion here.

Irlandese posted at 16:05 wrote:

Come on people, lets move this discussion to
Religion & Spirituality > Atheism & Agnosticism

Now, if you want to post in A&A that's fine by me. You can paste away there to your heart's content. But don't give us this nonsense about having no interest in backseat modding when you did it 6 times in under 2 hours.

Tom Dunne

Irlandese wrote: »

Why thank you, kind friend. We can say "friend" in humanities, I suppose?
It is certainly kinder than some of the things people have been saying
and getting away with, in christianity lately, as alluded to in my last post here.

Ok, Irlandese, there are a number of problems here as I see it.

Firstly, as this is a forum hosted in Ireland, frequented by a lot of Irish people, you need to understand the nuances of the nature of discussion in this country. To be blunt, I can see how your referring to people as "friend" can get people riled up. A minor point, possibly, but in a discussion with such and emotive topic as clerical abuse, anything at all that can get people even more riled should be avoided. Hence, I support the moderators request to ask you to refrain from referring to people in this manner on that thread.

Secondly, Boards.ie appoints moderators who have shown themselves to be interested in the subject matter of a forum and who can be trusted to run the forum with the best interests of the community at hand. It works on a type of peer-review system (no different really to how I became an Admin), so from what I have read in this thread, and from knowing how emotive the issue is, I can say I honestly have no problem in the way the moderators handled it. That thread could have been a complete trainwreck, but from what I have read (and I admit, I haven't read all of it), it is going as good as can be expected.

Finally, starting a thread in Feedback is not the way to address issues with the way a forum (or, as in this case, a thread) is run. The dispute resolution procedure is here, please have a read over it. Also, you can report posts you feel are either inappropriate, or are in need of review by others, such as CMods or Admins.

I am going to leave this thread open for the time being, to give the concerned parties an opportunity to reply.

Irlandese

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Ok, Irlandese, there are a number of problems here as I see it.

Firstly, as this is a forum hosted in Ireland, frequented by a lot of Irish people, you need to understand the nuances of the nature of discussion in this country. To be blunt, I can see how your referring to people as "friend" can get people riled up. A minor point, possibly, but in a discussion with such and emotive topic as clerical abuse, anything at all that can get people even more riled should be avoided. Hence, I support the moderators request to ask you to refrain from referring to people in this manner on that thread.

Secondly, Boards.ie appoints moderators who have shown themselves to be interested in the subject matter of a forum and who can be trusted to run the forum with the best interests of the community at hand. It works on a type of peer-review system (no different really to how I became an Admin), so from what I have read in this thread, and from knowing how emotive the issue is, I can say I honestly have no problem in the way the moderators handled it. That thread could have been a complete trainwreck, but from what I have read (and I admit, I haven't read all of it), it is going as good as can be expected.

Finally, starting a thread in Feedback is not the way to address issues with the way a forum (or, as in this case, a thread) is run. The dispute resolution procedure is here, please have a read over it. Also, you can report posts you feel are either inappropriate, or are in need of review by others, such as CMods or Admins.

I am going to leave this thread open for the time being, to give the concerned parties an opportunity to reply.

Hiya Tom,
Thanks for taking the time to input and the opportunity to make some comments back, before I move on. I would not have bothered you, as explained below, but maybe it is good for the site itself to have this kind of double-check on process management every now and then. I believe in the value of open debate on the internet, especially when we see what is happening in China and elsewhere. It is a pity to see freedom of expression tainted by improper moderation. I would obviously not be in agreement re how that forum managed the discussion, before I tried to move it away from there.
I also will not be replying to PND’s latest response to me, here. This is not because the carefully selected snippets are, typically, not from the relevant deleted posts, but because I have no intention of wasting further time on their kindergarten-standard “ you can’t play in my yard” antics, or the rest of it, when we are dealing with a topic of such sad importance to so many.
Please note that I did not want to start a thread in feedback, just to make my point and go. I also did not first pm the mods involved because I see no point in wasting time or energy debating with people with that kind of bias and tendency to misuse their role and mislead or downright tell untruths . I was actually trying to escape from that forum, where I obviously do not think they are capable of doing justice to as serious a topic as this.
The “friend” stuff is about reminding ourselves that we are dealing with people, who all can err, especially myself. You know the drill? Separate the person from the behavior etc.? But, when you meet people here, in discussions, who show the kind of darkness typified by that poster who said, twice, un-censored by the same mods, that those of us who were concerned about the little children being raped by priests, would be the very same people who would promote abortions, you need to focus hard on the fact that there is still some humanity there to deal with. In such cases, using “dark friend” was as far as I would go. I am Irish, though many years working abroad, so I understand your point re nuance. It is a moot point, though, about re using it in that biased forum, as I do not intend to return there, if I can avoid it. No offence intended, but I do not propose to engage in further discussions re this episode, particularly with the moderators concerned. I thank you again, for your interest and hope it may improve standards all around. Good day, Tom.